So over the past few weeks, I have been posting a meme a day to Facebook; I know not everyone follows me there, so I figured I would go ahead and repost them here… especially since linking to them is a lot easier on a static site than Facebook’s nightmarish hyperlink scheme.  I created all of these memes, though I obviously cannot claim credit for the original images, so feel free to spread and use them as you like. 











NEW YORK, NY - MAY 21:  New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg speaks during the Museum of the Moving Image and the Jim Henson Legacy collaboration press conference at the Museum of the Moving Image on May 21, 2013 in New York City.  (Photo by D Dipasupil/Getty Images)




Hillary Clinton Women






And this one I am just posting here so I know where to find it in the future for when I want to link to it; I did not create it. 


possibly fake but definitely accurate

By now, most of my readers have probably seen this image, along with the various other ones floating around all branded with the Brady Campaign’s logo:


Said image’s text reading, "A rape can last 30 seconds but a murder lasts for ever. Guns are not the answer." For the Googles.

And, like most of my readers, I saw the image and immediately dismissed it as a parody – oh, to be certain, the image more than captures the mentality and arguments of those who would strip law-abiding women of their Constitutionally-protected right to self-defense, but I did not figure that the Brady Campaign would be that mind-bogglingly idiotic.

It appears I might have been wrong. Might.

By way of ExurbanKevin, I bring you this photograph of a monitor apparently showing the above image posted on the Brady Campaign Facebook page by the Brady Campaign Facebook account itself:


Likewise, this screenshot is floating around out there as well:


Are those real? Honestly, I have no idea. Snopes, of course, has ranked the image as "Fake", but the only proof they offer is the Brady Campaign stating they "did not post that ad and have no affiliation with it". While I am loath to succumb to a genetic fallacy, the Brady Campaign is a known, inveterate liar with a documented history of scrubbing inconvenient slip-ups from their web presence, so I am somewhat disinclined to take them at their word.

Is the ad an actual Brady Campaign product? Did they really post it on their Facebook page? We will probably never know for absolute certain. But what is for certain is that graphic completely sums up the arguments and positions of your average anti-rights cultist quite plainly – "do not defend yourself, just give the criminal what he wants".

Hell with that.

keeping score on their irrelevance

Speaking of graphics, it would appear as though the hoplophobic "gun control" extremists at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership has released another one of their yearly "scorecards"*. What does that have to do with pretty pictures? Not a darned thing, but Barron’s analysis of that scorecard generated some nice graphs that I am going to steal, along with their explanations, below:

Here is the straight comparison of the score versus the violent crimes per 100k.


R2 dropped again to a value of 0.0016 and the correlation was calculated out to be 0.040117, while it did increase by 0.01, it is still completely insignificant and indicates there is no correlation between the Brady Score and violent crime. Moving forward though lets just limit this to the top 10 Brady Scores.


Again the correlation is non-existent with it coming in at –0.047. Anything that could be indicated by the trend line is irrelevant due to the very low correlation.


All scores above 50 had a correlation of 0.78 while the sample size renders it truthfully statistically irrelevant, it is trending in the direction opposite to which the Brady Campaign would claim. Next up though is all those with low murder rates.


There are 20 states who’s violent crime rate is below 300 per 100k. The average Brady Score is 11.85. Only three states have a score above 20, and those with crime rates below 200, the lowest in the country, all have scores below 10.

The short story, for the statistically-challenged, is that the Brady Campaign’s "scorecard" is completely meaningless. There is absolutely no correlation between the wholly arbitrary and fabricated "Brady Score" and a state’s violent crime rate, indicating that there cannot be any causality either (remember: correlation does not mean causation, but causation cannot exist without correlation). Amusingly, you only find meaningful correlation when you limit the sample size to the six states with scores above 50, and then those states with higher scores actually end up having higher violent crime rates (though a sample size of six is far too small to have any statistical significance).

Given that the specious "Brady Score" is entirely based on whether or not a state has passed the current authoritarians’-wet-dream laws that the Brady Bunch are currently salivating after, it likewise follows that those laws have absolutely no guarantee of having any salutary impact on violent crime.

So why pass them? As the saying goes, "gun control" was never about the guns; it was always about the control.

Speaking of geopolitical bodies with high scores, one omission from this "scorecard" has likewise been omitted from every single "scorecard" before it, and this glaring empty spot has always amused me, given the situation – where is Washington D.C.? After all, their laws are almost the very embodiment of what the Brady Bunch wants to force on the rest of the country, and yet they are invariably, mysteriously absent. Granted, D.C. is not, strictly speaking, a "state", but when have anti-rights cultists ever troubled themselves with anything as trifling as "definitions"? Something tells me, in this particular case, they are far more motivated by the fact that the small boost in scores would be over-counter-balanced by the absurd increase in violent crime, and the potential that a correlation they would not like at all might develop…

And even better than all of this, Barron discovered something of an Easter Egg when he was comparing the 2010 Brady "scorecard" against the 2011 edition, but you will have to head over to his place for the full story on that one.

As with all the previous "scorecards", this one embodies nothing more than the Brady Campaign desperately clawing and scratching for anything even approximating "relevance", while, all the while, they destroy any credibility they might have had. If they were not so rabidly trying to destroy my individual rights, I might almost feel sorry for them…

(* – On a purely subjective point, speaking personally, I would be ashamed to publicly release an Excel spreadsheet that ugly. Their formatting is inconsistent, the border lines randomly vary as to whether or not they exist and their thicknesses, sometimes they put "0" and sometimes they leave a cell blank, and the whole thing rather looks like a high school jock threw it together in the last five minutes before class just so he could avoid getting a 0 for the assignment. Considering that this is an official product of the only remaining "gun control" extremist organization with any actual membership or money, this, indeed, shows the dire straits their movement is in.)

quote of the day – weer’d beard

Why do "gun control" extremists hate women? Hold that question – we will come back to it.

I have to admit, the color pink does nothing for me. This is not some sexist statement; the color just has no particular attraction for me, and its extreme overuse by Hollywood socialites has all but soured me on the entire concept.

Furthermore, Better Half and I are both somewhat disheartened by firearm and firearm accessory companies painting/dying things pink and then claiming that they are marketed towards / targeted at women. Not all women like pink; it is rather demeaning to imply that women would not like something if it were not pink; and just changing a firearm’s color does nothing to alter whether or not it is easy to use for people generally or shorter stature and lower upper body strength.

That said, if someone wants to silver-plate their firearm, paint its grips pink, and stick diamonds all over it, more power to them and I hope they enjoy it. Lord knows the all-black motif of current firearm design needs a little variety.

In a similar vein, I cannot say as though I am a huge fan of the Walther P-22 pistol. Walther missed a chance by not making it a direct parallel to one of their pre-existing full-sized or compact pistols, and the construction (specifically the MIM parts) leaves something significant to be desired (I hardly see a post any more about those pistols without the word "failure" appearing at least once). And, finally, while the .22LR is great for plinking, I would argue there are better platforms for it available, and there are definitely better calibers for self-defense applications.

That said, I know of at least one woman who carries a P22 for self-defense, and while I would still encourage her to seek out stouter alternatives, I cannot say as though I specifically disagree with her reasons for doing so (aside from the assassin bit, but that is another matter for another time). In the end, a .22LR beats a pointy stick, and if that is what a person feels comfortable carrying and if that is what a person can reliably hit a target with, then more power to them.

Alright, so where the hell is Linoge going with all of this? Apparently Discount Gun Sales (which is a middlingly-large chain in the PacNorWest) is now offering the Walther P-22 Hope Edition, with a portion of each sale being donated to the Susan B. Komen Foundation in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Shiny (no, actually, the gun really is kind of shiny with that Duracoat finish on the slide). I am not exactly a huge fan of the Komen for the Cure folks at the moment, but so long as some of the funds get through to some honest-to-God research on breast cancer, I will deal with whatever objections I have about the color / firearm / foundation.

Apparently this makes me about an order of magnitude more accepting and tolerant than your average anti-rights cultist. On the one hand, we have this tweet from Joan Peterson, blood-dancer extraordinaire, deranged eugenicist, and Brady Campaign Board Member:

joanpetersonkomenwalther@ProtestEasyGuns – outrageous to see Komen Foundation pushing sale of pink handguns for Breast Cancer Awareness Month

And on the other hand, we have this tweet from Ladd Everitt, cyberstalker, bully, copyright violator, and "Communications Director" for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (despite getting their Twitter account shut down for weeks and forgetting to pay their hosting bill):

laddeverittkomenwalther#Komen Foundation offering pink Glock handgun in "recognition" of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Disgusting. #p2

(Note: surprisingly enough, the link goes to the actual listing for the firearm, not another of Ladd’s unhinged, frothing-at-the-mouth screeds.)

Let me get this straight… Selling a rather mundane, if arguably nattily attired, inanimate object in a quest to provide people a product that they want AND, simultaneously, raise money for an unquestionably good cause (Save the boobies! Sorry, someone had to…) is both "outrageous" and "disgusting"? So selling people – and, in this case, arguably specifically women – a tool with which they can drive back a larger, stronger attacker is "outrageous"? So supporting research into and prevention of the primary contributor to the second-most leading cause of death in women is "disgusting"?

… Huh?

I swear to God, I will never understand the mentality of your average "gun control" whackjob. Which brings us to today’s quote of the day, proffered up by none other than Weer’d Beard:

Gun control, the groups that would prefer women get cancer AND raped!

Classy people!

Indeed. The small amount of funds generated by this little exercise probably will not make the difference between treating breast cancer or not (but you never know), but in the name of keeping all people, including women, defenseless and potential victims, "gun control" extremists would cut off that trickle of funding all the same. It is no wonder anti-rights cultists have no shame – if they did, they could hardly live with themselves.

(And, if I do say so myself, this would be a perfect opportunity to employ a page from the "gun control" playbook against those who wrote it with very high efficacy.)

the eugenical dreams of joan peterson

I do not read Joan Peterson‘s (aka "Japete") misnamed weblog "Common Gunsense", simply because the level of derangement that woman exhibits frankly frightens me, but the cost of that restraint on my part is that I miss out on a great deal of blogfodder, which, if this post is any indication, might be just as well for my blood pressure and opinion of humanity.

To cut straight to the chase, it would appear as though, in an unsurprising falling-in-line with her anti-rights cultist predecessors, Joan Peterson has concluded that firearm owners should not be parents. Do not worry, that link does not go to her site, but this is the key quote in question, as originally penned by "Japete":

Why on earth does a 17 year old girl want a purse with a gun design on it that looks so real that airport security detained her?


Does it seem appropriate to you? The teen is pregnant so one has to wonder what role model this will be for her young child? There’s a message here and it’s not one of "peace on earth, good will towards men."

Ignoring, for a moment, the complete and utter idiocy of the TSA harassing a female teenager due to a stylized pistol bas relief on her purse, and then likewise ignoring Joan’s apparent belief that the Thousands of Sexual Assaulters agents are completely and totally infallible in all situations and circumstances, pay attention to the third question in the above blockquote.

In Joan Peterson’s intolerant and narrow-minded opinion, a person who ornaments their purse with a stylized, artistic, completely-non-operational rendition of a firearm is a deficient role model for whatever children that person may or may not have in the future. Given that baseline position, can you imagine what Joan must think about actual firearm owners, much less people who carry firearms, potentially even in their purses?

"But why should we care what an obviously mentally unbalanced hoplophobe thinks about our style or ownership of private property?" I can already hear you asking. You forget one thing – this is not just another "gun control" extremist wailing in the wilderness like Michael Bonomo and his thuggish, bullying co-authors; no, Joan is, in truth and fact, "President of the Northland Chapter and the Million Mom March Chapters’ national representative to the Board of Directors of the Brady Campaign". As such, and by her very own "logic" (though I very much hate to use that word in reference to anything she does), Joan Peterson’s positions and statements reflect – quite poorly, in this case – on the organizations she has agreed to represent and manage.

Organizations that have not, so far as I can tell, even attempted to muzzle an obvious loose canon who is doing them and their causes a world of harm.

Based on nothing more than her own bigoted perspective on the world, an official representative of the largest anti-rights organization in the country (which is not saying much), the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership, has apparently concluded that firearm owners are incapable of being good parents, and I can only guess it is a matter of time before she starts proselytizing about how to ‘save’ those children from their parents, much less other topics even farther down that particular rabbit hole. That is not "gun control"; that is eugenics, and I find the only safe course of action for me, to refrain from devolving into language I generally refrain from using here, is to quote what I have said in the past:

These are the kind of people who would despicably strip you of your Constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense and self-preservation. These are the kind of people who would rely on such reprehensible techniques as calling the Child Protective Services on someone who dares to disagree with them. These are the kind of people who knowingly aid and abet criminals through their “activism” and the legislation they support. These are the kinds of people who would uncaringly leave you and yours defenseless in the face of crime that does happen to anyone, anywhere, any time.

Do. Not. Let. Them. Win.

There is just too much at stake. 

quote of the day – joan peterson

This is me, being about as speechless as I get:

Who needs guns then? Well, hunters need guns for the sport. Some peo­ple need guns for their pro­fes­sion– law enforce­ment, secu­rity guards, peo­ple who trans­port cash from busi­nesses to banks, etc., gang mem­bers, drug car­tels, felons, rob­bers and those who, with­out a gun, could not do their jobs.

Follow the link for the full explanation (be not afraid – it does not go to her site), but the short explanation is that not only does Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign Board Member and blood dancer extraordinaire, believe that criminals "need" firearms, she also seems to believe that crime (i.e. the "jobs" of the "gang members, drug cartels, felons, and robbers") is completely impossible without the presence of firearms.

… *headdesk*

How do you even begin to have a rational conversation with a person like that?

quote of the day – patrick

Regular readers should be wholly aware of Brady Campaign Board Member and general-purpose "gun control" extremist, Joan Peterson, and her particular inability to craft or identify logical arguments, but do you remember that Joan’s flagrant, whimsical, and ineffective attempts to censor conversations at her site were the reason Sean Sorrentino started weblogging? Patrick did, which allowed him to make this priceless comment regarding how Sean is helping improve the media’s perspective on firearm owners:

And just think, Japete is Sean’s blog mother… LOL.

As I have said before in various places, Joan (or "japete", as she is known on her site) may just be one of the best things that has happened to pro-rights activists in recent history; however, while that point is certainly available for contention, I think everyone can agree that she is unquestionably her own worst enemy. Her logical fallacies, inability to live up to her own promises, blood-dancing, heavy-handed "moderation", belief that some lives are more valuable than others, lies, and double-standards have done more to alienate people from her and her cause than any of us could have ever dreamed of doing by actually taking the time to address her specious sophistry, and we should probably thank her for that.

But given the fervor and cultish narrow-mindedness with which she pursues the possibility of arbitrarily and unjustly abridging your Constitutionally-protected, individual rights, I cannot help but to chuckle at how that all-consuming zealousness only causes her to fail faster.